On this page: Patronus

PATRONUS;

1*78

(b. c. 236—221), who destroyed the power of the yepovffia by establishing patronomi in their place. The yepovvia, however, was not abolished by Cleo-menes, as it is again spoken of by Pausanias (iii. 11. § 2), and also in inscriptions. The patronomi are mentioned by Philostratus (Vit. Apollon. iv. 32) among the principal magistrates along with the gymnasiarchs and ephori ; and their office is also spoken of by Plutarch. (An seni sit resp. ger. c. 24.) Their number is uncertain ; but Bockh (Corp. Inscrip. vol. i. p. 605) has shown that they succeeded to the powers which the ephori formerly possessed, and that the first patronomus .was the €tt^v/jlos of the state, that is, gave his name to the year as the first ephor had formerly done. (Compare Miiller, Dor. iii. 7. § 8.)

PATRONUS. The act of manumission created a new relation between the manumissor and the slave, which was analogous to that between father and son. The manumissor became with respect to the manumitted person his Patronus, and the manumitted person became the Libertus of the manumissor. The word Patronus (from Pater) indicates the nature of the relation. If the manu­missor was a woman, she became Patrona ; and the use of this word instead of Matrona appears to be explained by the nature of the patronal rights. Viewed with reference to the early ages of Rome, this patronal relation must be considered a part of the ancient Clientela ; but from the time of the Twelve Tables at. least, which contained legislative provisions generally on the subject of patronal rights, we may consider the relation of Patronus and Libertus as the same both in the case of Patrician and Plebeian manumissores.

The Libertus adopted the gentile name of the Manumissor. Cicero's freedman Tiro was called M. Tullius Tiro.

The Liberfcus owed respect and gratitude to his patron, and in ancient times the patron might punish him in a summary way for neglecting those duties. This obligation extended to the children of the Libertus, and the duty was due to the children of the patron. In later times, the patron had the power of relegating an ungrateful freedman to a certain distance from Rome, under a law probably passed in the time of Augustus. (Tacit. Ami. xiii. 26 ; Dion Cass. Iv. 13.) In the time of Nero it was proposed to pass a Senatus-consulturn which should give a patron the power of reducing his freedman to slavery, if he miscon­ducted himself towards his patron. The measure was not enacted, but this power was given to the patron under the later emperors. The Lex Aelia Sentia gave the patron a right of prosecuting his freedman for ingratitude (ut ingratum accusare). (Dig. 40. tit. 9. s. 30.) An ingratus was also called Libertus Impius, as being deficient in Pietas.

If the Libertus brought an action against the Patronus(in jus vocavit), he was himself liable to a special action on the case (Gains, iv. 46) ; and he could not, as a general rule, institute a capital charge against his patron. The Libertus was bound to support the patron and his children in case of necessity, and to undertake the manage­ment of his property and the tutela of his children : if he refused, he was ingratus. (Dig- 37. tit. 14. s. 1.9.)

If a slave were the property of several masters and were manumitted by all of them, and became a Roman citizen, all of them were his Patroni.

The manumissor could secure to himself further rights over his libertus by a stipulatio or by taking an oath from him. The subjects of such agree*-ments were gifts from the libertus to the patronus(dona et munera) and services (operae). The oath was not valid, unless the person was a libertus when he took it. If then he took the oath as a slave, he had to repeat it as a freeman, which seems to be the meaning of the passage of Cicero in which he speaks of his freedman Chrysogonus. (Ad Att. vii. 2 ; compare Dig. 38. tit. 1. s. 7.) These Operae were of two kinds, Officiates which consisted in respect and affection ; and Fabriles which are ex­plained by the term itself. The officiales deter­mined by the death of the Patronus, unless there was an agreement to the contrary ; but the fabriles being of the nature of money or money's worth passed to the heredes of the Patronus, like any other property. The Patronus, when he commanded the operae of his libertus, was said "ei operas in-dicere or imponere." (Gaius, iv. 162 ; Dig. 38. tit. 2. s. 29.)

The Patron could not command any services which were disgraceful (turpes) or dangerous to life, such as prostitution or fighting in the amphi­theatre ; but if the libertus exercised any art or calling (artiftcium^ even if he learned it after his manumission, the operae in respect of it were due to the patron.

The Lex Julia et Papia Poppaea released freed-men (except those who followed the ars ludicra or hired themselves to fight with beasts) from all ob­ligation as to gifts or operae, who had begotten two children and had them in their power, or one child five years old. (Dig. 38. tit. 1. De Opens Liber-torum^ s. 37.)

If liberty was given directly by a testament, the testator was the manumissor, and his patronal rights would consequently belong to his children : if it was given indirectly, that is, per fideicommis-sum, the person who performed the act of manu­mission was the patronus. In those cases where a slave obtained his freedom under the Senatuscon-sultum Silanianum, the Praetor could assign him a Patronus ; and if this was not done, that person was the Patron of whom the libertus had last been the slave. (Dig. 38. tit. 16. s. 3.)

The patronal rights were somewhat restricted, when the act of manumission was not altogether the free act of the manumissor. For instance, the Manumissor per fideicommissum had all the patro­nal rights, except the power to prosecute for ingra­titude, the right to be supported by the libertus, and to stipulate for munera and operae : his rights against the property of the libertus were however the same as those of any other manumissor. (Frag, Vat. § 225 ; Dig. 38. tit. 2. s. 29.) If a slave had given money to another person in order that this other person might purchase and manumit him, the manumissor had no patronal rights, and he lost even the name of patron, if he refused to perform the act for which he had received the money and allowed the slave to compel him to per­form his agreement, which the slave could do by a constitution of M. Aurelius and L. Verus. (Dig. 40. tit. 1. s. 4, 5.) If a master manumitted his slave in consideration of a sum of money, he retained all patronal rights, but he could not stipulate for operae. A person who purchased a slave, and on the occa­sion of the purchase agreed to manumit him, had all patronal rights, except the right of prosecuting